|
“Fw: The Shack”
-----Original Message-----
From: (name removed
to protect privacy)
To: (recipients removed to protect
privacy)
Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 3:21 pm
Subject: Fw: The Shack...
This is from my sister in Hawaii. She and her husband Pastor over
there on Kauai.....
Dear girls,
I know Mom knows this stuff, but I wanted to warn the rest of you about
The Shack. As you probably know, this book is sweeping the
Church. Pastors buy the book by the case load to give away. Churches
use it as the basis of their Bible studies. Everybody and their Mother
is reading it. It is also very popular in the New Age bookstores, so
what does that tell you?
I've attached two different articles from
lighthousetrailsresearch.com that bring to light some of the most
disturbing aspects of this book and its author. One is one page long,
the other is about five pages.
Paul Young based this book on imagined conversations he had with "God"
during his 90-minute commute to work each day. He filled yellow legal
pads full of the writings. Not prayers, not REAL conversations, but
imagined conversations.
The conversations focused on evil things and so does his book.
The spirit behind Mr. Young's book is ANTICHRIST. Also, UNIVERSALISM:
everyone is saved, so why do we need a Savior dying on a Cross? Getting
people to "think outside the box" in regards to Who God is and how He
does things.
I'm telling you this so you can be aware of the dangers and warn
others. If you've read the book, I'd suggest you speak death to
whatever you may have picked up from reading it.
Love,
(Name removed to protect privacy)
(Note from Kyle: I
didn't actually copy the text of the "attached" articles, but you can
read them on the source website
here &
here)
( top of page |
back
to Tuesday home page |
comments )
“Kyle's Response”
(sigh) This makes me sad...
Some of the criticisms (in the attached articles) may have some merit, but
they are exaggerated way out of proportion, as reactionary christians often
do. It reminds me of the anti-Harry Potter hype a few years back. If there
were good reasons to be concerned about Harry Potter, they were obscured by
the venomous absurdities circulating in christian media (especially
circulating by email).
Many of the statements in this message, and in the attached articles, are
just plain stupid.
- "The Shack is NOT a christian book." Er, excuse me, is there
any such thing as a "christian book"? If so, what constitutes a "christian"
book? "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" contains no mention of
Jesus Christ - is it a "christian" book? For that matter, the "Song of
Songs" contains no references to God at all (and includes some highly
erotic language!) - is it a "christian" book?
- "the shack is sold in new-age bookstores, what does that tell you?"
Many New Age bookstores also carry the Bible - what does that tell you?
- "the spirit behind Mr.Young's book is Antichrist" That's a
little like saying "James Dobson is a Nazi", or "Sarah Palin is a
mysogenistic bitch". It's just mean-spirited inflammatory talk with no
basis in fact or reason, and certainly is not supported by the Bible (see
Col.4:6)
- "I'd suggest you speak death to whatever you may have picked up
from reading it" - huh? are you suggesting the book has witchcraft
spells embedded in it that we invoke upon ourselves? surely such
superstitious nonsense is not what you're implying. Do you mean "speak
death" to anything that challenges you to think? "speak death" to the
dangerous idea that God might actually reach into our pain to rescue us?
"speak death" to the risk of discovering that God's love for us is greater
and more personal than we knew? (these are the prominent themes of the
book)
- "Getting people to 'think outside the box' in regards to Who God is
and how He does things." And the problem with this is...? I say it's
high time to get out of the box. Most christians never bother asking the
questions that might bring them to a knowledge of who God is, but are
content to be spoon-fed a version of God that fits the biases and dogmas
of our various religious institutions. Sure "the Shack" asks some
troubling questions - but why shy away from troubling questions? Are we
afraid they might lead us to conclude that some of our preconceptions are
wrong? Do we have so little discernment that we can't stand to have our
thinking challenged, and need someone to censor our reading material for
us?
Two criticisms are perhaps worthy of discussion (but nevertheless in my
opinion are hardly sufficient to warrant censorship):
- "Paul Young is a Universalist" - I don't know whether
this is true or not, I'm hoping to interview him soon for my podcast and
would like very much to ask him about this. If true it would likely
affect the view of God presented in his writings, but does that mean he
has nothing worthwhile to say? Questions regarding who is saved/lost and
what happens to them have been hotly debated for millennia - do I reject a
brother because some of his conclusions are different from mine? There is
no basis in scripture for "dividing the body" along doctrinal lines - our
common faith is in the person of Jesus, not in some nuances of the things
we believe about him. Do you reject the Calvinist who believes (or seems
to believe, depending how you interpret his doctrine, no offense intended
to calvinists) that evangelism is irrelevant, since those who are saved or
lost were predestined before the foundation of the world? What about
views on baptism? Transubstantiation? The trinity (groups like the
Apostolic Faith Churches have a view of the Godhead that differs
substantially from most mainstream christian groups - does that view send
them to hell? Does it give us reason to call them "Antichrist"?
Personally I'm not sure any of us really have this figured out)?
- "Young doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement" -
again I don't know if this is true, perhaps his view of the atonement is
different from that of your denomination's teaching (which is different,
by the way, from that of the other church down the street). The mechanics
of the atonement have been debated by the worlds most brilliant minds for
2000 years. I have to admit, I've always been troubled by the "I
misbehave, Dad responds by beating my brother to death to satisfy his
anger, now he can love me" view of atonement, so if someone has a
different understanding, I'm interested. But the Shack doesn't
really deal with this, at least not directly. Again, is a variant
doctrinal viewpoint on the part of an individual a good reason to ban his
book?
In case you weren't aware, "The Shack" is a story, a parable, a work
of fiction (it has consistently been promoted as fiction, the authors and
publishers have never made any claims to it being anything but fiction).
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have our critical reasoning fully engaged
when we read it, but let's keep things in perspective folks! Similar
attacks have been levied against the works of CS Lewis (his delightful
short story "the Great Divorce", for example, raises similarly provocative
questions)
Personally, I loved "the Shack". I am in fact one of those who has
purchased many copies to give away. Sure, some of the ideas expressed in
it's many fictitious conversations might clash with certain doctrines of
your church, but I was unable to find any that were not supported by
scripture. (Ooooh... is it possible your church's doctrinal statement
doesn't have it all perfectly figured out either?)
To me, the biggest weakness of modern Christianity is that we've reduced our
"faith" to a collection of doctrines (ie, you qualify as "one of us" if you
sign off on the "statement of faith"), and have forgotten how to love. In
fact, we cannot love effectively until we discover that we ARE loved
(1Jn.4:19), by a father who is willing to take any risk, pay any price, to
break through our shell and sift through our smelly mess in order to show us
his love and draw us close to his heart. Being loved by Him, and knowing it
in your heart, changes everything, and empowers us to live the journey He
invites us on. This is much of the message illustrated by "The Shack".
"The Shack" is well-written, engaging, emotional (both sadness and
joy - have a box of kleenex handy), full of beautiful imagery, surprises,
and a few mind-benders. The conversations between Mack (the main character
of the story) and God are based on scripture and are (as far as I can tell)
entirely consistent with the messages of the Bible. I'd recommend that you
regard it, however, not as a doctrinal treatise, but as a parable intended
to reveal some aspects of the Father's heart for us.
So should you read "The Shack"? Personally, I recommend it, but
really it's up to you. If you avoid a book because some forwarded email
says it's bad, well, I'd just say forwarded emails are a poor substitute for
a discerning mind. If you avoid it because your church tells you to, well,
I'd start questioning what other ways your church is putting you in
bondage. If you're interested in "the Shack", don't listen to the
naysayers, read it for yourself. You may not agree with everything in it
(have you ever read a "christian" book that you agreed with 100%? I
recently heard a saying that I think bears repeating: "if you and I agree on
everything, one of us is not thinking"). You may finish and say "that book
was terrible" but at least you'll have the opportunity to discern it for
yourself.
My opinion: An excellent read. Made me laugh and cry. Couldn't put it
down. Has it all: action, adventure, romance, pathos. Definitely one of
the best works of fiction I've ever read. For whatever my opinion may be
worth, "the Shack" has my endorsement.
Blessings to all,
~kyle
www.kyleknapp.com
www.tuesdaytogether.us
( top of page |
back
to Tuesday home page |
comments )
(additional note: after responding to this mailing, I
decided to check out the website that published the 2 attached articles.
I'm no longer surprised by their opposition to the Shack.
lighthousetrailsresearch.com is devoted to exposing and opposing all
forms of what it refers to as "contemplative spirituality". They've
lumped together among the "offenders" such diverse resources as Willow
Creek, the Purpose Driven movement, the Emergent Movement, George Barna, and
the Alpha Course, as well as pretty much anybody who's had any kind of
"mystical" experience with God. The fact that all the fodder for this
email warning comes from a source with such a narrow viewpoint (Lighthouse
Trails Research) is just one more reason we should check our sources
before passing "information" along. ~kyle)
( top of page |
back
to Tuesday home page |
comments )
|
